Suppr超能文献

评估非典型抗精神病药治疗痴呆行为和心理症状的报告比较有效性和安全性:网络荟萃分析。

Assessment of Reported Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Atypical Antipsychotics in the Treatment of Behavioral and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia: A Network Meta-analysis.

机构信息

School of Pharmacy, Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Boston.

College for Public Health and Social Justice, Saint Louis University, St Louis, Missouri.

出版信息

JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Mar 1;2(3):e190828. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.0828.

Abstract

IMPORTANCE

Atypical antipsychotics offer modest effectiveness compared with placebo but with serious safety risks, including a boxed warning for the risk of death in the treatment of behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD). Their comparative effectiveness and safety are not fully known.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the relative benefits and safety of atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of BPSD shown in randomized clinical trials using network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, and Cochrane Library were searched from their inception until May 31, 2018. Key terms included dementia and atypical antipsychotics.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials comparing any atypical antipsychotic with another atypical antipsychotic or with placebo were included in the analysis.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent reviewers used a standardized data extraction and quality assessment form. Random-effects network meta-analyses were performed. Effect sizes were reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% CIs. In addition to ORs, the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was ascertained, which represents the percentage of the effectiveness or safety for each treatment compared with a hypothetical treatment that would be ranked first without uncertainty.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary effectiveness outcome assessed was the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI); secondary effectiveness outcomes were the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI). The primary safety outcomes were death and cerebrovascular adverse events (CVAEs). Secondary safety outcomes were extrapyramidal signs/symptoms; somnolence/sedation; falls, fracture, or injury; and urinary tract infection/incontinence.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies (5373 patients) were included. The mean (SD) age of all participants was 80.8 (3.1) years, and most were women (3748 [69.8%]). Compared with placebo, aripiprazole was associated with improvement in outcomes on the NPI (SMD, -0.17; 95% CI, -0.31 to -0.02), BPRS (SMD, -0.20; 95% CI, -0.35 to -0.05), and CMAI (SMD, -0.30; 95% CI, -0.55 to -0.05); quetiapine was associated with improvement in outcomes on the BPRS (SMD, -0.24; 95% CI, -0.46 to -0.01), and risperidone was associated with improvement in outcomes on the CMAI (SMD, -0.26; 95% CI, -0.37 to -0.15). Differences between atypical antipsychotics were not significant for effectiveness, death, or CVAE. Compared with placebo, risperidone (OR, 3.85; 95% CI, 1.55-9.55) and olanzapine (OR, 4.28; 95% CI, 1.26-14.56) were associated with increased risk of CVAEs. The SUCRA estimated relative ranking of treatments suggested that aripiprazole might be the most effective and safe atypical antipsychotic and that olanzapine provides the least benefit overall; however, these results should be interpreted with caution where point estimates (OR and SMD) show that there is no statistically significant difference.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This network meta-analysis supports the existence of a trade-off between the effectiveness and safety of atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of BPSD and confirms that a single most effective and safe treatment option does not exist. Clinicians should individualize the assessment of safety risks against expected benefits when prescribing these medications to patients with dementia.

摘要

重要性

与安慰剂相比,非典型抗精神病药具有适度的疗效,但存在严重的安全风险,包括治疗痴呆患者的行为和心理症状(BPSD)的死亡风险的盒装警告。它们的疗效和安全性尚未完全确定。

目的

使用网络荟萃分析评估随机临床试验中非典型抗精神病药治疗 BPSD 的相对疗效和安全性。

数据来源

从建库至 2018 年 5 月 31 日,通过 PubMed/MEDLINE、Embase、PsychINFO 和 Cochrane Library 检索文献。关键术语包括痴呆和非典型抗精神病药。

研究选择

纳入比较任何一种非典型抗精神病药与另一种非典型抗精神病药或安慰剂的随机临床试验。

数据提取和综合

两名独立评审员使用标准化的数据提取和质量评估表格。进行随机效应网络荟萃分析。连续结局的效应大小报告为标准化均数差(SMD),二分类结局的效应大小报告为比值比(OR),置信区间(CI)为 95%。除 OR 外,还确定了累积排序曲线下面积(SUCRA),它表示与假设的排名第一的治疗相比,每种治疗的有效性或安全性的百分比,而没有不确定性。

主要结局和测量

主要的有效性结局评估是神经精神疾病问卷(NPI);次要有效性结局是简明精神病评定量表(BPRS)和科恩-曼斯菲尔德激惹量表(CMAI)。主要安全性结局是死亡和脑血管不良事件(CVAEs)。次要安全性结局是锥体外系症状/体征;镇静/镇静;跌倒、骨折或损伤;和尿路感染/失禁。

结果

纳入 17 项研究(5373 名患者)。所有参与者的平均(SD)年龄为 80.8(3.1)岁,大多数为女性(3748[69.8%])。与安慰剂相比,阿立哌唑与 NPI(SMD,-0.17;95%CI,-0.31 至-0.02)、BPRS(SMD,-0.20;95%CI,-0.35 至-0.05)和 CMAI(SMD,-0.30;95%CI,-0.55 至-0.05)的结局改善相关;喹硫平与 BPRS(SMD,-0.24;95%CI,-0.46 至-0.01)的结局改善相关,利培酮与 CMAI(SMD,-0.26;95%CI,-0.37 至-0.15)的结局改善相关。非典型抗精神病药之间在疗效、死亡或 CVAEs 方面没有差异。与安慰剂相比,利培酮(OR,3.85;95%CI,1.55-9.55)和奥氮平(OR,4.28;95%CI,1.26-14.56)与 CVAEs 风险增加相关。治疗相对排名的 SUCRA 估计表明,阿立哌唑可能是最有效和安全的非典型抗精神病药,而奥氮平总体上提供的益处最小;然而,由于点估计(OR 和 SMD)表明没有统计学上的显著差异,因此应谨慎解释这些结果。

结论和相关性

这项网络荟萃分析支持非典型抗精神病药在治疗 BPSD 中的疗效和安全性之间存在权衡,并且证实不存在单一的最有效和安全的治疗选择。当给痴呆患者开这些药物时,临床医生应该根据预期的益处来个体化评估安全性风险。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/adcd/6583313/a876d14b9e88/jamanetwopen-2-e190828-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验